1920-03-18

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
present to the House the report of the Clerk of Petitions dated the 18th of March. I *would direct attention to the latter portion of this report which is as follows:
He lias also examined the following petitions and finds that as the granting of the prayer of the said petitions would involve the expenditure of public money, they should not he received.
Then he recites certain petitions which have been presented by hon. members of the House and the prater of these petitions. It is in conformity with the invariable practice, as well as the rules of the House, that petitions of that character cannot be received.	*
S



REPORTS AND PAPERS TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
Second Annual Report of the . Historical Documents Publication Board, together with accompanying printed volumes, being the second edition revised and enlarged, of the first volume of the Constitutional Documents relating to Canada, 1759-1791, now issued in two parts.-Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Orders in Council together with a copy of a letter addressed to the Chairman of the Canadian Section of the International Joint Commission dated January 1, 1920, relating to the development and use of the waters of the St. Lawrence forming the boundaries between the United States and Canada.- Hon. Mr. Rowell.
Returns, Reports and Papers concerning the railway station at the Palis in the city of Quebec; appointment of harbour master in port of Canso; the. dismissal of James Conner; bonds and secuurities registered; amount of Canadian securities previously held in Great Britain; refunds in tolls and duties; number of commissions appointed

by the Government since 1914; number of commissions appointed since 1911; construction in the city of Quebec of a tunnel to facilitate the entrance of the Transcontinental railway; total number of persons of both sexes now employed by the Federal Government; contract between the Canadian Government, through the Canadian Wheat Growers, and Greece; construction of a dam over the Bt. Charles river; transfer of wharves on the St. John river.-Rt. Hon. Mr. Sifton.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1 beg leave to move, with the consent of the House, that seven hundred and fifty copies in English and two hundred and fifty copies in French of the report of Dr. Rutherford, commissioner appointect" to inquire into racing, be printed forthwith, and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir George Foster the name of Hon. Mr. Tolmie, Minister of Agriculture, was added to the iSelect Standing Committee on Agriculture.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How many cruisers, destroyers, submarines, trawlers, drifters, tugboats, etc., comprise the Canadian Navy, exclusive of Fishery Protection ships?
2.	How many of this number are in harbours on the Atlantic coast and how many on the Pacific coast?
3.	How many are in commission on the Atlantic coast and how many on the Pacific coast?
4.	"What was the total cost to Canada fjr naval expenditure from March 1, 1919, to February 20, 1920?
5.	How many cadets are being trained at the Naval Colleges or elsewhere?
6.	How many naval ratings are in the Service?
7.	How many officers are in the Service? Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:
1.	Cruisers, 3; destroyers, none; submarines, four; trawlers, fifty-six Imperial for charge only; drifters, seventy-two Imperial, for charge only; tugs, etc., twelve.
2.	Atlantic, 143; Pacific, 4.
3.	Atlantic, 2; Pacific, 1.
4.	Naval appropriation, $257,794.65; demobilization appropriation, $5,820,007.21; demobilization suspense, $937,907.49.


PUBLICATIONS IN FRENCH.
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Why has not the "Farmers' Account Book" heen printed In French yet?
2.	Why has not the publication known as the "Birds of Eastern Canada" been published in French yet?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 1.	The "Farmers' Account Book'' was published by the Commission of Conservation and has been printed in French. The French edition is exhausted and a new edition is now on order in the Printing Bureau.
2.	"Birds of Eastern Canada'' (Memoir
104, Geological Survey, Department of Mines) was published in October last, and work on a French translation was undertaken at once, and will be completed shortly. The usual practice of the department is to defer translations into French until the English editions are published. This is done in order that any additions or alterations made by the author prior to or during publication may be included in the translations.	.


HON. MR. BLONDIN'S TRIPS TO EUROPE.
*Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many trips has the Honourable P. E. Blondin made to England, France or any other European country since December, 1917?
2.	For how long was he absent from Canada on each trip?
3.	What were the total amounts of the bills submitted to the Government or any member of the Government, for expenses incurred by Mr. Blondin on these trips?
4.	What was the total cost to the country of "each trip to Europe made by Mr. Blondin?
5.	Have all accounts incurred by Mr. Blondin when overseas been paid?
6.	If not, what amounts remain unpaid?


Hon. Mr. ROWELL:: 1.	One.
2.	From October 4, 1917, to July 5, 1918.
3.	82,433.33.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Yes.
6.	Answered by No 5.


PRESS CENSORSHIP.
Mr. McMASTER:: 1.	Does the press censorship still exist?
2.	If not, when did it terminate?
3.	What has been the total cost of the press censorship since the 11th November, 1918?
4.	How has said sum been expended?


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: 
BRIG.-GENERAL LANGTON.
*Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	Did Brig.-General Langton, Paymaster-General of the Militia Department, have any service overseas during the European war?
2.	Was Brig.-General Langton a Lieut.-Colonel in the Canadian Army Service (Corps when the war broke out in 1914?
3.	What was his age at that time?
4.	Did he volunteer for service overseas on mobilization in 1914 or at any other time?
5.	Did he receive a communication from the officer administering the C.A.S.C. asking him whether he desired to have his name noted' for service overseas?
6.	What reply, if any, did he make to the communication ?
7.	What was the reason for Lieut.-Colonel Langton not proceeding overseas?
8.	On what date was he appointed Acting Paymaster-General?
9.	On what date was he appointed Finance member of Militia Council?
10.	Prior to the appointment of Lieut.-Colonel J. G. Langton as Acting Paymaster-General

 (a) what practical experience had he in the duties of an officer in charge of the Pay and Accounts of a Military Force, either in peace or on active service, and (b) in what capacity did he acquire this practical experience?
11.	In regard to the statement by Major-General Mewburn, then Minister of Militia, in the House of Commons on the 29th April, 1919, that "as far as I am concerned! every (permanent) appointment that is made will he given to a man wAo has seen overseas service," what is the reason for departing from this principle by the appointment of Brig.-General Langton to the Permanent Staff on the 8th of October, 1919, nearly six months after the abovequoted definite statement of the Minister of Militia ?
12.	What special qualifications justified the promotion of Colonel J. G, Langton to he a Brigadier-General and for his appointment as Finance Member of Militia Council?
13. Were there any officers in the Canadian Pay Corps who had the necessary qualifications and experience for appointment given to Colonel J. G. Langton? If so, why were they passed over when Colonel Langton was appointed?
14.	Did Mr. J. W. Borden, the former Accountant and Paymaster-General, administer both the Accounts Branch and the Pay Branch of the Militia Department?
15.	Does Brig.-General Langton only administer the Pay Branch?
16.	What was the total salary paid to Mr. J. W. Borden immediately prior to his retirement?
17.	What rate of pay and allowances ' per
annum has Brig.-General Langton received since he was appointed Acting Paymaster-General?	.
IS. What rate of pay and allowances does he receive now?

.19. What is the total amount of money received by Brig.-General Langton for the twelve months ending 29th February, ,1920?
20.	Was Brig.-General Langton's permanent appointment made on the recommendation of the members of Militia Council?
21.	Did any members of Militia Council oppose this appointment?
22.	Uipon what grounds was Brig.-General Langton's appointment opposed?
23.	Did Colonel Edwards and Major Stiff, Chartered Accountants, investigate or inspect and report to the Minister of Militia on the condition in which they found Brig.-General Langton's branch?
24.	What was the date of this report?
25.	Was this report complimentary or adverse?
2<6. Will the report be tabled in the House in so far as it deals with the Paymaster General's Branch?


Hon. Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes.
3.	46 years, 10 months.
4.	Yes. He placed himself unreservedly at the disposal of Lieut.-General Sir Sam Hughes, then Minister of Militia, in August, 1914, and reported immediately for duty at Valcartier, and was detailed as Railway Transport Officer on mobilization, and Embarkation Officer of First Contingent.
5.	No such communication appears on the official files of the Militia Department.
6.	Answered by. No. 5.
7.	Lieut.-General Sir Sam Hughes, then Minister of Militia, reports as follows: "General Langton's services were placed at my entire disposal early in August, 1914. He made repeated requests to be allowed to go overseas, and I am responsible for the retention of his services in Canada, as, in view of his experience and organizing ability, I desired his services in ths country."
8.	8th February, 1918.
9.	8th October, 1919.
10.	(a) and (b). After embarkation on First Contingent, General Langton was specially selected by the then Minister of Militia as Deputy Inspector General in charge of Regimental Audit and Accounts of Units of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, which work was performed by him in such an efficient manner that he was selected and appointed by the then Minister of Militia, Major-General Mewburn, as Acting Paymaster-General.
11.	This partial quotation of General Mewburn's speech is further qualified in said speech, and never was intended to deprive the officers who had been compelled to remain in Canada of all future chances of either promotion or appointment, and the reason General Langton was selected

was on account of his valuable services in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
12.	The financial responsibilities of General Langton as Acting Paymaster-General, owing to the fact that demobilization of the Canadian Expeditionary Force was well under way, became greater and greater, and it was considered that this officer, on account of his valuable services, deserved such promotion on appointment as Finance Member of Militia Council.
13.	After due and careful consideration of the claim of Permanent Force Officers in the Pay Corps, the then Minister of Militia was of opinion that General Langton's appointment was in the best interests of the public, and, therefore, recommended to Privy Council that General Langton be appointed as Finance Member of Militia Council.
14.	Yes, until such time as the burden of the administration became too heavy for one officer alone, causing his health to become impaired to such an extent that he had to retire to pension.
15.	Yes.
16.	As a civil servant-not an officer of the Permanent Force-he received the maximum salary of his class, i. e., $4,000 per annum.
17.	8th February, 1918, to 31st March, 1918, $6,000 per annum; 1st April, 1918, to 20th February, 1919, $7,000.
18.	$7,000 per annum.
19.	Pay, $7,000; travelling allowances at rates prescribed by regulation, total $172.
20.	21 and 22. Appointments to Militia Council are made on the recommendation of the Minister of Militia to Privy Council, and are not considered in Militia Council.
23, 24, 25 and 26. Colonel Edwards and Major Stiff did make an investigation of the three branches of the financial organization of the Militia Department, i. e., the Pay Branch, the General Auditor's Branch, and the Branch of the Chief Accountant. Verbal reports were made from time to time to the then Minister of Militia, and coordination between these branches proceeded at the same time as the inspection took place. At the conclusion of their work, these officers wrote a personal letter to the then minister, which was for his own information. There is no record in the department of this letter.


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES IN PETERBOROUGH.
Mr. BURNHAM:: 1.	Are those employees of the Government in Peterborough who, by reason of age are entitled to superannuation, in receipt of the same?

2.	Are they in any case retained after the age of superanuation set out in the Act?
3.	If so, why?


Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: Customs and Inland Revenue-
1.	One employee is entitled to superannuation. There are four employees each of whom is over 60 years of age but they do not contribute to the superannuation fund.
2.	Yes.
3.	The physical and mental capacity of the employee is still unimpaired and he is capable of efficiently performing his duties. Railways and Canals-[DOT]
1.	The employees of the Department of Railways and Canals at Peterborough are not contributors to the superannuation fund.
2,	and 3. Answered by No. 1.
Trade and Commerce-
1.	The Department of Tiade and Commerce has one officer who is over the age limit, but as he does not contribute to the superannuation fund, he is not entitled to superannuation.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


Rt. Hon. Mr. SIFTON:: House of Commons. The following approximately
Session,
Indemnity..$580,737.40
Sessional Clerks ..	..	10,810.17
Stenography. 14,437.79
Ex. Committees ..	..	3,905.89
Newspapers	 110.22
Sessional Messengers. .	13,420.50
Pages	 1,860.25
Servants	 4,122.25
Sees. Charwomen	..	2,065.00
Approximately.
Stationery		$ 4,674.55
Postage	  ..	731.87
Miscellaneous.  2,844.33
Debates	 17,751.70
Tradesmen and	others	2,137.09
Printing	 22,579.22
covers the

Total

The Senate.
The cost of the extra Session of Senate, 1919 :
Indemnity, Senators	 $225,000
Transportation	 5,000
Salaries and Contingent expenses including printing	 12,000

Of this amount $230,000 is Statutory.


BUTTER IN COLD STORAGE.
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What quantity of butter was held in cold storage in Canada on September 30, 1918?
2.	What quantity of butter was held in cold
storage by the several companies engaged in the manufacture of oleomargarine in Canada on the following dates:	September 30, 1918, July 1,
1919, November 1, 1919, and March 1, 1920?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1. Quantity of butter held in cold storage in Canada September 30, 1918.
Lbs.
Buttei, creamery	25,009,812
Dairy	 2,081,442
Total .. ..27,091,254
2. Quantity of butter held, by firms manufacturing oleomargarine on:
Lbs.
September 30,	1918	3,622,830
July 1, 1919	1,777,814
November'l, 1919	6,630,070
March 1, 1920	2,469,536
COST OF EXTRA PARLIAMENTARY SESSION, 1919.	.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: What was the cost of the extra session of Parliament in the year 1919, including indemnity and travel of Senators and Members of the House of Commons, salaries or wages of officials, printing and all other expenses?



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	What is the total amount received toy the Government from fines imposed on conscripts for default under the compulsory Military Service Act?
2.	What is the amount by province?
3.	What is the amount for the district of Joliette?
4.	What is the amount for the county of L'Assomption-Montcalm ?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to reimburse such fine to those who have paid?
_ Mt. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough):
1.	On what date was a branch of the Public Works Department first established at Antigonish, N.S.?
2.	What counties in Nova Scotia were originally under the jurisdiction of the Aintigonish branch?
3.	When was the North Sydney office established?
4.	What were the names of the employees in the Antigonish branch prior to the change and the amount of their yearly salaries?
5.	What were the names of the employees in both offices on December 31, 19}.4, and their yearly salaries?
6.	What are the names of the present employees in iboth branches and their respective yearly salaries?
7.	How much was expended in public works in the area under the jurisdiction of the Antigonish branch for five years prior to December 31, 1911?

8.	How much was expended in the public works in the a<rea covered by both the Anti-gonish and North Sydney branches during the five years subsequent to January 1, 1912?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.

Mr. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: For a copy of Order in Council No. 1589 for creation of a Wheat Board and for a copy of Crder in Council stating salary of the Chairman and Assistant Chairman and for the providing of remuneration for travelling and living expenses, showing the amount of same *md rate per day of expenses allowed, etc., etc. Also for a return showing departmental co3t of the administration of the Canada Wheat Board to March, 1920, or latest date for which information is available.


Mr. ROBB (for Mr. Sinclair, Queen's):: For a copy of the report of the Committee or Commission appointed in 1919 by the Minister of Militia and Defence, of which General Morrison was Chairman, for the purpose of visiting* the different Military Districts in Canada and ascertaining, among other things, the most suitable method of incorporating in the proposed reorganization of the Permanent Force the members of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces; and also the report of the said Committee on the Special Commission given them by the Minister of Militia to inquire into the return of the Military District to Prince Edward Island.



CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION.

Mr. A. E. FRIPP (Ottawa) moved:: For a copy of all representations, complaints and other correspondence filed with the Civil Service Commission regarding Classification of the Civil Service of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in asking the House for this return I desire to make one or two observations. The question of the classification of the Civil Service of Canada is a most important one, and it has proceeded now for some months, but from the information I have obtained I think it is time in the interests of the Service that a halt should be called.
Under the Act of 1918 respecting the Civil Service of Canada, the Civil Service Commission were empowered to classify the Civil Service. I submit the proper reading of the Act will be found to be that the classification was to be performed by the Civil Service Commission, or by such per-sorik as they might engage and to be afterwards confirmed practically by the heads of the different departments.
It will be very interesting to the House I am sure to learn just how this classification has been carried out. In the first place, the Commission engaged an American firm, the Arthur Young Company of Chicago, to perform the work. I for one, Mr. Speaker, desire to register my protest against the employment of this firm.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: If it was necessary to employ a firm of experts to classify the Civil Service-which I do not admit-surely there were persons and firms carrying on business in the Dominion quite competent to perform the work.
I asked for a return with regard to the cost up to date of the services of the Arthur Young Company, and I find that the answer given yesterday is not correct. I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Sifton) to the figures which he placed on Hansard in answer to my question. I ascertained at the Auditor General's office this morning that instead of the sum mentioned in answer to my inquiry as having been paid to these gentlemen for this work, viz., $49,107.42, the correct figures are as follows:
Up to the 31st March, 1919, $34,695.76, and for this fiscal year to the end of September last $56,536.17, or a total of $91,231.93. The appropriation ran out in September last, so no payments have been made to the Arthur Young Company for the last five months. The Auditor General estimates that that further expenditure will be in the neighbourhood of $60,000 to the first of March.


Mr. PROULX:: A great waste. -


Alfred Ernest Fripp: So the House will see that the total sum already paid and proposed to be paid to these Chicago gentlemen amounts to over $150,000.


Mr. BUREAU:: Just for classification work?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: That is for classification
work only. Now, Mr. Speaker, had this work been carried out in any businesslike way, perhaps, apart from the objection I have already noted, one could not say very much against it. But I venture to submit that if a committee be named by this House to investigate the work done by these gentlemen it will be found to be most inefficient and in many respects absolutely absurd-in fact, they have attempted to classify the service without any proper idea of the work to be performed.
What do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, .was the mode of procedure of these young men from Chicago, ranging from twenty-five to forty years of age, who have been performing their work in the city of Ottawa for several months past? In order to classify a department one would imagine that they would have at least, gone first to the deputy minister and ascertained from him the status of the different persons under his

control. No, Mr. Speaker, that was not their procedure, because that would have resulted in a very few weeks' work to complete their so-called classification. Instead of adopting that course they made out a simple card index, and every clerk in the service was handed a card with the request that he fill out his name, age, present occupation and duties. Having obtained that information the young gentlemen sat down in their office, without, I am informed, any consultation with the deputy * heads of the departments, and made out a list of the civil servants with the salaries which in their opinion should attach to their positions.
In order that the House may have some idea of the manner in which this work was carried out, and the results obtained, let me give one or two illustrations. I find that dealing with the following secretarial positions the Arthur Young Company classify them in this way:
Secretary of the Civil Service Commission	$4,620
Secretary of the Pensions Board .. .. 4,200 Secretary of the Research Council .. .. 3,300 Secretary of the Post Office Department 4,200 Secretary of the Department of the Interior	2,400
Every hon. member knows that the Department of the Interior, being one of the largest and most important in the public service, requires a man as secretary with a knowledge of the department from A to Z, and to classify him as worth only $2,400 a year, while the secretary of the Civil Service Commission, who requires no knowledge at all except of clerical work, so far as I am aware, is classed as the highest of them all, is but one instance of the many absurdities contained in this so-called classification.
Then to give another example. In a certain department there are two young ladies, -I want to show to the House just how they were classified by these experts. One of them-we will call her Miss B-was appointed temporary clerk in September, 1916, was made permanent in 1918 and is now a *3-B clerk at $750 a year. She has been graded by these experts as a junior clerk at a salary of from $660 to $960 a year. Miss H, a temporary clerk in the same department, doing the same class of work, was appointed only in July, 1917, and had been classed as a 3-B clerk at $700 a year. Upon being asked for a report upon the work performed by these young ladies, the gentleman in charge of the branch replied in the case of Miss B, as follows:
She came to us highly recommended and I have found the estimate, of her ability well 35
merited. She is a clerk of splendid qualifications and has already proved capable of taking charge of work of considerable responsibility. She holds a first-class professional certificate from the Department of Education of Ontario, also a Commercial Specialist's Certificate, and has had several years' experience as a high school teacher in Ontario. She has been rated altogether too low by the Civil Service organizers.
Of Miss H, he reports:
This lady has been performing very good services, but as there are not enough vacancies available Miss H might well wait a year or two on account of her youth and her recent appointment.
How were these young ladies graded by this Civil Service expert? Miss H, of recent appointment, with only a year's experience in the department, is graded a class higher than Miss B, with a salary of $960 to $1,260 a year, while Miss B is rated, as I have said at $600 to $960, absolutely in defiance of the recommendation of the man who was in the best position to form an estimate of their ability.
Now, the difficulty with this classification -which, I think, ought to have been foreseen by those who brought in these experts, -is that, not having had any experience in the service, or any intimate knowledge of the manner in which the work of the different departments is carried on at Ottawa as well as in other portions of Canada,-because this classification affects all classes of the service, both inside and outside-they have classified the jobs; they have said: " This job is worth $800 a year," and they have totally disregarded the individual ability and aptitude for work of the different clerks in the several branches. The whole classification, therefore, is nothing but a.stupendous farce. Any business man in this House knows that you may employ, for instance, three stenographers; one of them may be worth $900 a year to you; the other two may be worth $500 or $600 a year, but under this classification they are all put in at $900 a year without any distinction at all as to their respective merits and qualifications. These illustrations, Mr. Speaker, ought to show the House that the work of classification has been very badly done, and if I may offer any advice to the Government it is that they get rid of these gentlemen at the earliest possible moment, and call in the deputy ministers and the chief clerks of the different departments who, I venture to say, can classify the public service of Canada in a much more efficient way than has been done by these experts.
These gentlemen have also .been asked to deal with the re-organization of the Printing

54G

Bureau. It is hard to know what department or what minister has control of the Printing Bureau, but one would have thought, having regard to the manner in which these American gentlemen have dealt with the other departments, that in the reorganization of the Printing Bureau the King's Printer or the Assistant King's Printer or both would be the men to say who should be laid off and who should be retained when the staff was being reduced. But you will be surprised when I tell you that, if my information is correct, this young gentleman, so-called expert, goes down to the Printing Bureau and, under the authority of the Government, selects two classes of men who are to be laid off: Men over 65 years of age and the men whom he thinks-whom he thinks, forsooth-are inefficient. Now, whether or not the gentleman who undertook this work in the Printing Bureau is an expert in the printing business I. do not know, but I do know that upon his recommendation hundreds of men have been laid off or are to be laid off, many of whom are amongst the most efficient men in the Printing Bureau and are under the age of 65. I need mention only one name. A sub-foreman named Pritchard, under forty years of age, one of the best men we had in the Bureau, has been laic off by this so-called expert on the ground of inefficiency, although the King's Printer and the Assistant King's Printer tell me that he was one of the most efficient men in the branch of the department in which he was employed. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is patronage of the worst kind. To hand over to Americans the authority to go into the public service of Canada or any part thereof and to say to John Smith, " You shall stay," and to William Brown, " You shall go," is patronage of the worst kind and should not be tolerated by this Government who are responsible to the people. Personally I am opposed to going back to the patronage system; I had some experience in that regard as member for Ottawa during the past ten years. But in my judgment this classification by this American concern has done more to weaken the policy of this Government in connection with placing the control of appointment under the Civil Service Commission of Canada than any other thing could possibly have done. The Government have probably not been made aware as I have been made aware of the conditions that are existing in the Service to-day. Ninety-five per cent of the members of the Civil Service to-day are upset. They are discouraged; a feeling of unrest pre-
vails among them. Why, Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Mines alone nine-tenths of the scientific men there employed have resigned during the last six months. Most of them, of course, have been offered and will receive a much higher remuneration than the Government has been giving them, but many of them have told me that having regard to the advantages of being in the service, having regard to the fact that they were doing work that they liked and with which they were thoroughly familiar, they had been willing to forego the increased emoluments offered to them from outside in the hope of expectation of their receiving a proper superannuation to provide for their older days. They were, however, compelled to leave the service on account of the classification. What has happened? I am informed, on very good authority, that this condition of affairs has reached such a pass, especially in the scientific branches of the service, that another commission, consisting of three very estimable gentlemen, has been called in to go over and pass upon the work that has been done by the firm of Arthur Young and Company.
I felt it my duty, as this matter affects not only the Civil Service in the city of Ottawa which I have the honour to represent, but the Civil Service of Canada as a whole, to bring it to the attention of the Government and to urge upon them to withdraw from the Civil Service Commission the power that they have given them to employ these American gentlemen, to dispense with the services of these gentlemen at once, and to have the service reorganized by the men most competent to do so, namely, the deputy ministers and their respective chief clerks.
Mr. JOHN H. BURNHAM (Peterborough West): Mr. Speaker, it will be remembered that the fault which has now been exploded, if I may say so, by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), was the work of the members of this House who put themselves on record as being unfit to recommend anybody for anything. The members having declared that they were unfit for that duty, it only remained for the Government to take up the job. Possibly these hon. gentlemen knew themselves best and whether they were fit or unfit, but for myself I took the opposite course. The only distinction between what was done in the old days and the course adopted at the present time as outlined by my hon. friend, (Mr. Bureau), is simply this: You have removed the responsibility one degree further from the electorate; you have cen-

tralized it instead of leaving it in the hands of those who were not only directly but immediately responsible to the people. If any hon. gentleman, we shall say, of the Opposition, made a false or bad recommendation or passed upon a recommendation in a wrong way, he would toe immediately brought to time by the electorate. But the present system as to recommendations has been adopted instead of leaving the- responsibility in the hands of the representatives of the people. I admit, of course, that if the people are no good and their representatives are no good, it is all up; but if the representatives are fit and proper men, as they ought to be, then notwithstanding what they have said about themselves, the stigma they have left upon themselves, the very low value they have set upon their own characters


Jacques Bureau: I rise to a point of order. My point of order is that I do not wish to accept the statement that I have stigmatized myself. I deny that.


Mr. BURNHAM:: The hon. member has risen to a point of order. A stigma is a point, and a point is that which is without dimensions.
Mr. 'SPEAKER: The hon. member (Mr. Bureau) has risen to a point of order. I must say, in all deference, that I do not see that the remarks of the hon. member for Peterborough West reflect in any way on the character of any hon. gentleman in this House. It is his opinion that by the House taking a certain course, it has stigmatized itself, but I do not understand his remarks as casting a reflection on any member.


John Hampden Burnham: Quite so, Mr. Speaker. I had no intention of casting any reflection; they cast their own shadow. But the members having by their own indifference given out of their own hands the duty of looking after the 'Civil Service, inside and outside, and having handed over their responsibility to the Government, what could the Government do but centralize the authority and centralize patronage in itself? Since they had been told by the representatives not to look at them, not even to dare to speak to them with regard to anything concerning their constituencies and any recommendations in connection with their constituencies, what could the Government do but consult other people in the constituencies? The fact of the matter is simply this, that the members of the House, through laziness, indifference, or failure to see what was coming, handed over the authority and 35*
responsibility which belonged to them. In this, they were helped on by the newspapers who saw the ebb and flow of a sensation and who simply hurried them into this catastrophe, and here we are with $150,009 worse than wasted. I have no doubt that the press when they have discovered this error, will take up the matter again and blame the House of Commons for what they have done, and the press will be quite right. There is no getting away from the fundamental principle, that if you are not honest, no system will make you honest. It is not the system; it is the administration


Jacques Bureau: The legislation.


John Hampden Burnham: Not the legislation; legislation is only the expression of the will of people who have no will.
Let- me say, however, in closing, that if you are going to renounce the fundamental principle that an honest man will do honest work; that those who have brains enough and application should receive promotion and pay; and if the people and their representatives cannot be trusted to carry out a simple thing like that, then it is all up.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I trust, if any other hon. members speak upon this motion^ they will not broaden the question unduly. The question of patronage might be indirectly referred to in this matter, but it is my duty to point out that this is a specific motion calling for papers having to do with the classification of the Civil Service of Canada.


Edmond Proulx: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) has mentioned several cases where the so-called experts have failed to appreciate the importance of the duties of certain civil servants. I want to mention another case, which is a glaring one. They classified the translators of the debates of this House and of the Senate, of legislation and of the different departments, and they put those translators into the class where the minimum is $1,260; contending that their qualifications would be those of high school graduates. Any one who has had experience with high schools in Ontario knows very well that the French language is not taught sufficiently in those schools -and I think the same may be said of high schools in other provinces-to qualify high school graduates to be translators of the debates of this House or of departments of the public service. The position of a translator to-day is, one might say, a profession, and it requires a university education in

both languages; a man must follow a course of studies as long as if he were studying for a profession, and it is absurd to say that a man who has gone through a university and acquired a thorough knowledge of botli languages should be put into a class where his salary would begin at $1,260. If that is going to be the case, we shall have very poor translators; many of those who are already in the service, if they are not too old to get out, will get out, and those who will replace them will certainly not be as well qualified as those who have left the service. There are many other cases; but I want to point out especially this case, and I am of the same opinion as the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) that the money spent in employing these so-called experts was worse than wasted.
The Civil Service of this country is composed of different branches, and we have two languages. How did the so-called experts know what qualifications were required of officers whose duties included work in both languages? We had Canadians much better qualified, find I do not see why it was necessary to go to the United States to get so-called experts to do this work. The Government must have gone back on their policy of past years. It was not so long ago when they would have no truck or trade with the Yankees, but now they cannot classify the Civil Service in this country without going to the United States for experts. I think there has been too great a tendency on the part of the Government for some years past to "pass the buck," to shelve their responsibilities to commissions and experts. Who could be better qualified to classify the Civil Service of this country than the deputy ministers and the chiefs of the different branches of the service? I do not think any better qualified men could have been chosen. They knew the personnel of the service, their qualifications, and the importance of the duties pertaining to the different offices. What could men from Chicago or New York know of the importance of the duties, for instance, of the , secretary of the Interior Department? My hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) has pointed out the glaring inconsistencies in classifying secretaries of the different departments. I would also like to cite the classification of the Translation Branch. If we wish to have efficient service rendered by that branch it will be necessary to have it re-classified by genuine experts, such as university professors, who have been educated in both the French and English languages.
[Mr. Proulx.J
Hon. NEWTON W. EOWELL (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, there is no objection whatever to the motion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Fripp), but in view [DOT]of some of his observations I think it is only right that a few words should be said lest a wrong impression might be created, and I am sure my hon. friend does not desire that.
I regret that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. ' Maclean) who, while a member of the Government, looked after this branch of the work, and who is familiar with all its details, is not in the House. He has followed this reclassification from its inception and knows all about it. I am not in possession of all the information, and therefore am not able to inform the House as I should like to be able to do with reference to a number of matters mentioned by my hon. friend, but as a member of the Government I have a general knowledge of the situation, and am therefore able to correct some of the misunderstandings which I fear my hon. friend has fallen into.
As the members of the House will recall, the general Civil Service Act which was passed in the year 1918 made provision for the reclassification of the service. This Act was passed by this House and at that time the question raised by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) was a perfectly proper question to raise. The hon. member has been consistent throughout. He did not believe that the proposal to put all appointments in the public service under the Civil Service Commission was a wise one in the public interest, but at that time this House affirmed the principle of putting the Civil Service under the Civil Service Commission and it provided for a reclassification of the service. Members of the House who are familiar with the service know that prior to that time the inside service was classified, and I think some sections of the outside service had been brought under a measure of classification. So far as the inside service is concerned, it was divided into one, two, or three classes, with various grades in those classes, and men were placed in these different classes, not necessarily in accordance with the importance of the actual work they were doing, but in many cases because of the length of time they had been in the service. A man entering the public service might continue to perform exactly the same duties year after year over a long period of years and yet by means of being promoted from one class to another have his salary very greatly in-

creased. The result is that there are men in the service who under the old classification are being paid twice the amount-I use that figure roughly, I am not familiar with the details-that others are receiving who are doing exactly the same class of work, simply because they had been longer in the service, or had been pushed forward when others had not been pushed forward. In different departments of the Government,
* under the old classification, men performing the same class of work were in different classes, and were paid different salaries. Every one recognized that it does not promote efficiency in the service to have men doing exactly the same class of work paid radically different salaries, nor does it promote efficiency to have one man paid a smaller salary than the man who is performing much less important work in the same branch. But that situation did exist under the old classification. Now the House in 1918 affirmed not only the principle of placing civil servants under the Civil Service Commission, but
4 p.m. of providing for a reclassification of the service. Reclassification was entrusted by the Act to the Civil Service Commission. They were authorized and instructed to undertake the work, and in undertaking that work they called to their assistance Arthur Young & Company. Speaking for myself I had never heard of that firm until they were retained by the Civil Service Commission for this work. The Commission advised the Government, and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the advice they gave, that after canvassing the whole field the best experts who could be secured for the purpose of undertaking this most important and responsible work-the largest civil service classification ever undertaken up to that time on this Continent-was Arthur Young & Company. This firm had a large number of experts with a very high reputation in classification work, and so it was called in to assist the Civil Service Commission in classifying the service. Arthur Young & Company are not responsible for the classification: The Civil Service Commission is responsible for it.


Jacques Bureau: Did Arthur Young & Company or the Civil Service Commission make the classification?


Mr. ROWELL:: The Civil Service Commission.


Jacques Bureau: Then what was the object in calling in Arthur Young & Company?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They were the experts who advised the Commission and did the detail work, just as my hon. friend when he was in charge of one of the departments of the Government was responsible for the work of that department, although the actual work was performed by the men under him in that department.


Jacques Bureau: And I chose them myself.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Civil Service Commission chose these men themselves.


Jacques Bureau: Were Arthur Young & Company brought here to tell the Civil Service Commission what kind of work was being done by each branch of every department?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, they were not.


Jacques Bureau: Then what was the use of their services?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They were here to advise and assist the Civil Service Commission in working out the reclassification-


Jacques Bureau: They knew nothing about it.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -and that is what they have done. They continued their work during the year 1918 and the greater part of the year 1919. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) laid on the table of the House last year the result of the reclassification up to date. He introduced a Bill [DOT] approving of that reclassification. That Bill was referred to a committee of this House for consideration and report. That committee of this House had Arthur Young and Company before them, they had all the information before them and after the committee had considered the matter they reported the Bill and the reclassification back to this House. With that report before it, the House passed the Bill. Whether that action was wise or unwise, this House is responsible for the principles embodied in that classification. This House adopted it and it is that classification that is being worked out.
One or two words with reference to certain other points which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fripp) has raised because in respect to these he is under a misapprehension, as I know by reason of matters which have come under my observation in my own department. My hon. friend said that the method by which they collected information about the work of the public service was a card index, a card being sent out to each civil servant on which he should write out his

present position and the character of the work that he was doing. That is perfectly correct but it was required that the deputy minister or head of his department or branch should approve that statement before it came back to the Civil Service Commission. Whatever the definition of the duties of any man in the Civil Service might be, it only came back to the commission with the approval of the deputy minister or the head of the branch concerned. All the information that the Civil Service Commission has received has gone to it with the approval of the deputies or the heads of the different departments.
What was the duty of the-Civil Service Commission and their experts when they had received these cards defining the duties? It was to seek to classify them so as to secure a measure of uniformity in all branches of the public service. My hon. friend has referred to stenographers. Well, take stenographers; is it right that stenographers of the same skill and ability should be receiving $200 or $300 more in one branch of the public service than that same class of stenographer is receiving in another?


Jacques Bureau: It depends on the work.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I refer to equal quality
of work in all branches of the public service. My hon. friend has taken stenographers as an illustration of the classification. They create different classes of stenographers with a different scale of remuneration depending upon their skill in stenography.
I have not the figures before me and I am not able to state the range of the salary among stenographers. I know there is a wide range. I think they start at $800 or $900 in one class and go up to $1,500, or something like that although I am not sure of the figures. There is a wide range between the lowest and the highest grade of stenographers. All stenographers in all branches of the service are classified on this basis. New stenographers coming in all come in at the same rate of pay in every branch of the public service. When stenographers in any branch of the service have attained a degree of efficiency which'entitles them to promotion to a higher class, they are promoted to that higher class. That is the principle which applies to other classes and branches of the service. The basis of the classification is that all employed in the public service should be paid in accordance with the character and quality of the work they do, not in accordance with the personal will or likes of any minister or any deputy minister or any member of Par-
liament; not according to their political affiliations and not necessarily according to their length of service except there is some advantage in length of service because there is a provision for annual increases in these different classes. The basis of the classification is payment in accordance with the value of the work done.


Jacques Bureau: What about the ability
of the worker?


Newton Wesley Rowell: And the ability of the
worker. Take the class that I have mentioned-stenographers. They cannot be appointed as stenographers until they have passed a qualifying examination which indicates that the person is qualified for the post. That is, when a stenographer first comes into the service all who enter are paid on that basis. After they have been admitted to the service and are doing more advanced work they are entitled to go into a higher class.


Mr. COPP:: Who examines them in the
case of the promotion examination? *


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Civil Service Commission is responsible for the examinations for promotion as well as those for entrance into the public service. T am quite aware that there has been dissatisfaction in the Civil Service in connection with this matter. It would be impossible that the situation could be otherwise with the classification of a service of 50,000 employees. It is only right that the House should know that if the Civil Service Commission, and if the experts, had been willing to give a general advance in salaries beyond what would have been justified, much of the opposition would have been removed. They came to the Government, submitted the case and said : " The fact is that tremendous pressure is being brought to bear upon us to move up the classes beyond what we think is right and in the public interest, and to move up salaries beyond what people could earn in similar positions outside the public service; it means the expenditure of public .money; what do you want us to do; the question of finance is peculiarly a matter for the Government, do you want us to yield to this pressure from the Civil Service and move salaries up beyond what rwe think is right and in the public interest or do you want us to do what we think is right.?" The Government said:
" Your duty is to do what you think is right in classifying the Civil Service of Canada and we will stand behind you in doing it."


Mr. BEST:: Did the Government do their duty by increasing the salaries of a number of people from $100 to $1,000 when this report was expected down at any moment? Was the Government justified in putting into the Estimates increases in salaries ranging from $100 to $1,000 a year for certain members of the public service when this report was expected down at any moment?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There were in the Estimates, as my hon. friend (Mr. Best) has said, in 1918, or 1919-


John Best: 1919.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -in the spring of 1919 before the classification had gone into effect, the names of certain officials appeared in the Estimates for increased salaries. I do not question what my hon. friend has said. Personally, I have no hesitation in. saying that I think the Government made a mistake in including any names' in the Estimates brought down in the year 1919. I think all should have stood over until the Civil Service Commission report was brought before the House. These, however, were very few; there were very few cases of that but I think we made a mistake when we did it at all. We should have left all o\ cr until the classification was brought clown-I have no hesitation in saying that. We are not infallible, we do make some mistakes and that is one that we made in connection with the Civil Service.
My hon. friend has referred to the question of the experts and the employment of experts is a difficult question. I know it because I have had difficulty myself in retaining chemical experts in the Food Adulteration Branch of the Department of Health. I was called upon to look into this matter by' reason of the difficulties arising in this branch of the service owing to the retirement of a number of men from the service. It was stated to me that the reason for their retirement was because of the unsatisfactory result of the classification. I looked into the matter, and I found the fact .to be that the re-classification provided a substantial advance for those men over the sala.v which obtained under the existing Civil Service regulation. But while the reclassification provided for an advance, the fact was that commercial institutions were in a position to pay them very much more than even the advanced figure, and as a result they left the Civil Service and accepted these commercial positions. Now it may be that the demand for expert service is so great at the present time, it may be that commercial institutions are in a position to pay so much for skilled and trained experts, that the Government of Canada must substantially increase its payment if it is to retain those experts in the public service. I want to point out, however that the responsibility for the existence of these conditions does not rest on the Civil Service Commission or the experts advising them. They did provide for a substantial increase over the salaries previously being paid. It may be, as I say, we will have to review the whole situation and provide for the payment of experts in the public service on a substantially higher scale than has been paid in the past, or the country may entirely lose the benefit of the service of such men.
Then my hon. friend has referred to the classification of the individual in the service. I may tell the House and my hon. friend, that the classification as framed and set out in the Act, or in the schedule to the Act, simply defines the different classes in the different branches of the service. To apply that classification to the existing service is a matter of great difficulty and in that application of the classification the deputies are all consulted and always consulted. The application of the classification is submitted to them and they are consulted with reference to it, but under the Act, final authority is in the Civil Service Commission. The Act of last session authorized the Civil Service Commission to review, or amend, or modify any of the classes provided for in the report laid before Parliament. Since that time the Commission has been busy reviewing the classification where complaint has been made, and I am glad to be able to inform my hon. friend that in the great majority of cases the result has been to give satisfaction to the parties concerned. A Board of Hearing has been formed consisting of two representatives of the Civil Service themselves, two deputy ministers and a member of the Civil Service Commission, which Board hears the complaints and appeals from the classification, and as a rule it is able to reach a reasonable degree of unanimity in its conclusions. The Civil Service Commission has always acted upon its findings and when the decisions arrived at come to the Governor in Council, I believe we have invariably approved them. In cases where particular individuals are dissatisfied with the application of the classification in a department they may appeal direct to the Civil Service Commis-

sion and the Commission hears that appeal and disposes of it. The members of the House will realize that in classifying *such an enormous service mistakes are bound to occur. I have had matters brought to my attention where I think mistakes did occur and where a better result might have been secured, but those are all being rectified. The Civil Service Commission is dealing with the matter, and I believe is earnestly, faithfully, and effectively working out the application of the classification solely from the standpoint of the public interest and what is absolutely necessary for the Service.' We should give the Commission a chance to -do so, and give them a thorough opportunity, in the reclassification of a public service as extensive as ours is in Canada, to prove its worth and show what the results will be. While in my own department there have been some applications of the classification which I think could be improved it has not at all shaken my faith in the merits of the system, in the wisdom of Parliament in adopting it, nor in the beneficial results that will come to Canada when it is thoroughly worked out, and I believe it will mean a great deal to the eflicienry of the whole service.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend stated just now that he did not have full information about this matter. Could he give me any information with respect to the rule followed in classifying translators, for example, and state under what classification these gentlemen come?	.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am sorry I cannot answer my hon. friend's question because I really have not the information except that I know there are different classes of translators. What the limits of the classification are I cannot say, but "I shall be glad to get the desired information for my hon. friend.


Jacques Bureau: My reason for asking the question is because of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of correctly classifying translators. They must be first class men possessing not only a thorough knowledge of both languages but considerable literary and scientific attainments.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I agree with my hon. friend that a translator must not only be well educated and thoroughly understand both languages but that he should have literary qualifications 'also.


Jacques Bureau: Likewise technical.


Newton Wesley Rowell: These qualifications are necessary in order to enable them to translate from one language into another in a style that will be accurate and suitable in literary form. At the same time I think my hon. friend will not dispute the fact that there are degrees of efficiency and qualification even among translators. Nature and long experience will doubtless qualify one man much better than another.


Jacques Bureau: Naturally.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Long experience will greatly help one man over another.


Jacques Bureau: But nature must have done its part first.


Newton Wesley Rowell: A distinction might
properly be drawn between translators that have just entered the service and are doing work not of great importance and translators of long experience engaged upon more important work.
I do not think it is necessary to add anything further. I only wished to make those general observations with reference to the work of re-classification lest there should be a misunderstanding owing to the remarks of my hon. friend.


Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Laval-Two Mountains):: Let me draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that there is a difference between the translators of debates and the translators in other departments. The debates translators are under the control of the House of Commons and are deait with by the Debates Committee. When a vacancy occurs examinations are supposed to be held under the supervision of the .Chief Translator. Some years ago when I was a member of the Debates Committee it used to meet regularly but of late I have not heard of the committee holding any sittings. It seems to have vanished.
Now, to come to my point. If the debates translators are under the control of the Speaker, how is it that the so-called experts in classification claimed the right of classifying those officials? Have they a right to usurp the authority of a committee of this House and to classify employees who are specifically under the control of Parliament? All the other members of the iCivil Service in the various departments are under the authority of the -Civil Service [DOT]Commission, but the translators and the reporters of the debates, I repeat, are under the control of this House, and I think I am right in denying to the so-called experts any power to interfere with the Debates

Committee. There is great confusion in regard t* the classification of the translators and official reporters of the House of Commons and of the Senate, and it should be cleared up.
My hon. friend has just reminded us that when the Hon. Mr. Maclean presented the (Classification Bill last year he stated that the civil servants would have an opportunity of stating their grievances to an Appeal Committee of the Civil Service Commission. Those men are very anxious to know what remedies they now possess in regard to this faulty classification, and before the first of April, when the classification is to take place, I think the Government should take the steps mentioned by my hon. friend for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), with whose remarks I am perfectly in accord. I have myself on the Orders of the Day a motion for papers in regard to the same matter, but I did not expect this question would he brought up to-day. I have not one or two, but fifty, complaints from civil servants with respect to the reclassification.
In regard to the scientific men in the service, I wonder how many analysts are now employed in the Department of Inland Revenue? If I am well informed, twenty of the most efficient have resigned and only four now remain; those who have left the service having been offered better salaries outside. The classification of their positions was simply ridiculous, and I am confident that the classification of other /branches is equally ridiculous.
I endorse the remarks made by my hon. friend for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), and when the opportunity comes next week I shall be glad to furnish to this House complete information in regard to the way this classification has been worked out, and the injustice which is bound to follow by its application to the service.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Mr. Chairman,


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I must remind the House that the hon. member is about to exercise his right to close the debate, and if any hon. member desires to add anything to the debate he should speak now.
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria)I have followed with a great deal of interest the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) with reference to the Civil Service classification, I might remind him and other hon. members that we have been discussing this subject quite a number of times. I remember that about a year ago we appointed a committee to inquire into the Civil Service, and that
committee subsequently made a report. I am sorry to say that I do not think the Civil Service were able to get any great results from that committee. I have no doubt they worked faithfully, but their investigation was conducted more or less concurrently with the classification efforts of the firm brought from the United States, and I imagine the two bodies were working at cross-purposes.
Let me say to the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) that the first thing that struck me as serious was what he declares to be the system of dismissals. I watched with interest the answer of the President of the Privy Council to that point, and, if I followed him correctly, I do not think he touched on it at all. If a man has rendered faithful service he had a right to expect generous treatment at the hands of the Government in regard to promotion and otherwise. I think if what my hon friend for Ottawa stated is correct-and I have no reason to doubt it; it is not controverted by any member of the Governments that men of the highest standing of their grade in the service are dismissed without any investigation whatever, except some man stepping into an office, where perhaps there are thirty men working, and, with his eye on one of them, tossing a cent and saying, "Heads you stay, tails you go out," -that appears to me to be a very poor system of dealing with such an important service. I do hope that if there is to be a certain weeding out of the department the greatest possible care will be taken and that some more reasonable system will be established and followed by the Government than that described by the hon. member. I must accept his description as "being correct, for I noticed that the hon. gentleman who spoke for the Government, and who is always ready to put forward everything that can be said in defence of the Government-


Newton Wesley Rowell: Will the hon. gentlema-allow me? I do not think I should permit my hon. friend to make any such assumption. I did not speak on that point because I had not the details, but I am quite sure when the facts are investigated it will be found that every consideration has been given to retaining men in the service. In the public interest it is most desirable to release those whose services are not required. Where such men are released the Government has made provision for them and the House has voted money by way of recognition.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I do not think the
hon. President of the Privy Council has

any right to interrupt on that point anti for that reason. My hon. friend knows the rules that would govern if during the course of an address to a jury I stated that there was no evidence on a certain point, and the learned counsel on the other side stood up and said: "If the judge will allow me I am going out into the highways and byways to get evidence on that point, which I will produce the week after next." My hon. friend knows that in a case of that kind the judge and jury would have to deal with the matter on the spot, taking the evidence as it stood. In view of the fact that no remarks have been offered by the President of the Council to justify the course that the Government are taking in regard to dismissals, I do not think he was up to his usual form in interrupting me and stating that some day in the dim future the Government are going to do better; are going to adopt some other system that will be more humane in dealing with their servants. For the present, Sir, we have to accept the statement of the member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) and believe that this is the unsystematic, unscientific and improper manner in which the Government are dealing with their servants, with men who may be called workmen, because they are workmen in the service of the Government and of the country generally.
No one in this House who has had any experience in public life has any doubt as to why it is so extremely difficult to grade and keep graded the civil servants. When this Government came into office they dismissed 11,000 civil servants-at least, that was the record up to last year-and in their places appointed 24,000. Now, these 24,000 were dumped upon the deputy ministers, and the deputy ministers could not leave them standing on the streets or in the halls of the public offices; they had to put them somewhere-twelve here, ten there, five somewhere else, and absolute confusion was the result. Moreover, when we start to grade them, the men who are in charge cannot do it because there was no system about it; many were dumped into positions that were not required to be filled, simply because places hj,d to be found for men who were chosen by ministers for appointment, possibly in fulfilment of an ill-advised promise made before or during the election. That is why this classification has run beyond the power of the deputy ministers and why these outside men were called in to do the work.
Why, Sir, extraordinary positions have been given to men in the public service. I

was told the other day of a young fellow who shortly after this Government took office came to one of the departments seeking a position and bearing a letter from one of the ministers to the deputy minister. Well, there was nothing for him to do; the department was already overcrowded. However, there could be no such thing as the deputy minister turning down the recommendation of the minister, so this fellow was given a position. "What shall I do?" he said. "Oh well, we have nothing for you to do, but you can carry some books from this room to that room and carry them back; keep moving around from day to day and possibly something will turn up." After a few days this young man, who, having come from the country, was more or less conscientious and unused to such trickery, said to the deputy minister: "There must be something wrong; I find a fellow following me around all the time; no matter where I go this fellow dogs me continually; when T go to one place, he is there; when I come back, he is after me. I am not going to stay here." "Oh," said the deputy, "don't be surprised at that; you are all right; that fellow is your helper." When things are carried on in that way is it any wonder that it is difficult to grade the civil servants and to determine what wages such a man as I have spoken about should get, and what his helpeT should get?
-Sir GEORGE FOSTER: Would my hon. friend give names and dates?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is entirely unnecessary to give names and dates.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: If you do not, you spoil the story.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This has been going
on every day dor the last eleven years-at least since this Government came into power-and to give such a string of figures as this would involve would be confusing even to the astute and analytical mind of my right hon. friend (Sir George Foster). I mention only this instance; it will be sufficient to make my right hon. friend see that the difficulty has been that we have too many men and not enough places for all. When you have ten men whom you must dispose of in some way without dismissing them but have only one position to fill, the situation becomes a difficult one.
I can see no reason, unless it be timidity, why the Civil Service Commissioners should not have themselves determined the remuneration and avoided the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars involved in bringing people from a foreign country

to tell them what they should do and what wages the men should get. I think that is a remarkable display of weakness on the part of the Commission. The President of the Privy Council told us-he will correct me if I am wrong-that the gentlemen who compose this Commission came to the Government, said that they were overwhelmed with demands for higher salaries, and asked: " What shall we do? Shall we meet these demands by giving higher salaries than we think is right, or shall we stand by our own judgment?" Surely a Commission whose duty it is to select men for the public service and to designate proper salaries foi them should stand their ground, do their work, serve the country, or resign. But evidently the Government consented that the Commission should not discharge their duty and that they should, at the expense of the ratepayers of this country, send to the United States for a most expensive commission and have it sit here for months to tell them what they should do. That is, in effect, the declaration that was made by the President of the Council here to-day; there is no denying it. I cannot find any justification for the Government standing by an institution of that kind. Why, Sir, what can you expect from an institution of that kind? What decision, what judgment, w'hat organization can be expected from this Civil Service Commission, when they had not the sagacity or the backbone to decide how much salary this man, that man, or the other man in the public service should get? It is an evidence of frightful weakness; it is an indication that there should be some improvement along that line or that some other course should be taken by which civil servants may be protected and the treasury of the country looked after better than it is. There should not be more civil servants than are necessary properly to carry on the business of the country. There is plenty of room for men and women in other walks of life throughout Canada; there is sufficient demand for employment outside to let the Civil Service be relieved of the overwhelming burden which it now seems to carry, with unsatisfactory results to the Government and to the country. I again remind the member for Ottawa and the Government that the difficulties which they meet to-day in connection with the Civil Service are due to the wonderful promises that were made before and during the election of 1917. Civil servants were told that wonderful things were to come tp them by reason of this re-classification; and as a result, in the city of Ottawa itself there was an overwhelming majority for the Government, a much greater majority than had been the case in previous years. Civil servants were made to believe that the Government was to be returned to power, and that when it came back to power this re-classification measure was to be introduced and wonderful things would come to them. The Government was returned to power, the re-classification- took place; but the wonderful things have not come to the civil servants. Consequently, the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) and the Government find these chickens coming home to roost and these difficulties that now overwhelm them. But let me say that I hope a proper classification will be made and that the classification will be kept in order from year to year, from month to month and from day to day as men are coming into the service. If you go into any first class academy in any of the counties of Ontario or anywhere else, you will find that the principal of that academy has no difficulty in grading his pupils; he puts them into the proper places, because the grading is looked after systematically and properly from time to time, and the authorities have some conception of how that grading should be done. But if you take the whole ten or fifteen departments of any high school of this country and dump them together, the kindergarten with the high school pupil and ask a man to go in amongst them and grade them, you are asking him something that no human being can do. When, however, things are done properly, systematically and from day to day and as they ought to be done, there will be no trouble, and I would bring to the notice of my right hon. friend that if he will get out of this frightful muddle and get those departments into proper shape once for all, henceforth this Government or whatever Government may be in power in this country should see to it that no one is taken into the Civil Service who is not required; that if any one's services are required, he should be properly graded and put into the proper place, and that the country receives proper service for proper salaries paid.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise only for the purpose of asking a question. Is it the intention of the Government to see that a classification is made of the employees of the House of Commons? I understand that the Civil Service Commission takes the position that it has no jurisdiction over the employees of either the Senate or the House of Com-

mons, and that the House of Commons should look after the classification of its own employees. 'If that be so, I would suggest the advisability of having a committee of this House appointed for the purpose of making that classification. It would not be fair to the members of this House and it would not be proper that such classification should-be made by any officer or set of officers and then submitted to the House for approval at the end of the session. Such a course would not be treating this House fairly, and I would, therefore, suggest that a committee be appointed for the purpose.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. SpeakerjMr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is only by the unanimous consent of the House that the hon. minister can answer the question as he has already exercised his right to speak on this motion.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps the leader of the Government might answer.


George Green Foster: I should much prefer that my colleague do so.


Georges Henri Boivin: I take it for granted that the House gives its unanimous consent that the hon. minister may answer the question.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My information is not quite that of the hon. member. While I speak subject to correction, because I am not as familiar with this classification as I should like to be, my impression is that, under the Act of last session, the Civil Service Commission classifies the positions of the staffs of the Senate and the House of Commons. Then the classification is submitted to the Speaker for submission to and approval by the House. When that is approved, the classification will be applied to the Senate and House of Commons' staffs. But I shall be glad to look into the matter further and give my hon. friend fuller information, and it may be that it will be desirable, if not necessary, to have a committee appointed to deal with the matter.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make one or two observations in reply to the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) who is not as well equipped with the facts pertaining to the matter as he usually is when he addresses the House: If I understood him correctly, he stated that the deputy ministers approved this classification. He must have forgotten that last session a deputation from the deputy ministers appeared before
f Mr. E. Lapointe.]
a committee of the Senate and protested vigorously against the classification as rendering the Civil Service inefficient. Amongst them was Mr. Boville, a most efficient servant in the Finance Department, who has since left the service, and one of his reasons for leaving the service-I do not think I am breaking any promise that I made to him when he told me-was that he found that under the classification of these so-called experts he had not the control over his department that he ought to have and, therefore, he could not remain in the public service. Another deputy minister is Mr. Newcombe, also a very efficient servant, and I think another is Dr. Coulter of the Post Office Department, and all these gentlemen protested vigorously against this classification as rendering the Civil Service absolutely inefficient instead of efficient as we all desire it to be.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member evidently did not hear me


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Very likely I did not.


Newton Wesley Rowell: What I said was that the deputy ministers were consulted with reference to the classification and so on. I did not say that they had approved it, because I do not know whether they did or not.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The deputy ministers were consulted as to the form of the index cards. They approved the information which each clerk gave; they simply gave their approval as to his correctly stating his name, age, work and salary; but they have never approved, and I do not think they approve the classification as prepared for their staffs. If I understood the President of the Privy Council correctly, he said there was promotion provided for. I should like to inform him that if this classification goes into effect, there will be practically no promotion for civil servants. You might as well write above the doors of our departmental buildings " Abandon hope all ye who enter here," because these classifications are absolutely fixed. A man is put into a certain grade and his duties are defined, and the deputy finds that when he says to a clerk: " I have work for you to do in another room," the clerk replies: "Oh, I do not work there; my duties are so and so and my salary is so and so." You have absolutely lost control of your staff.


Mr. STEELE:: When a vacancy occurs, is there any opportunity for promotion?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I was going to give an example of what happens when a vacancy occurs. A deputy minister informed me that he had a messenger in his department

and in another branch of the department, the Weights and Measures Branch, he desired a man to clean scales. He wrote to the Civil Service Commission , recommending that the messenger be promoted to that position which meant a promotion of $50 a year in his salary. What do you suppose was the reply he got from the Civil Service Commission? They replied that there could be no promotion; that the job of cleaning scales was a new one, and that they would have to advertise for a new man. Thus under the system prepared by these experts, a new man has to be appointed whereas under the old system the services of a man already in the employ of the department could have been utilized.
With regard to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) and the reference I made to the Printing Bureau, I have it from the head of the Bureau, and from the Assistant King's Printer that as to the men who were laid off by this so-called expert, their approval was not given, and that they did not give their opinion that the men who were dismissed from that service were efficient or inefficient. Surely that is a state of affairs that ought not to be allowed to prevail in the Civil Service of Canada. If there is to be a lay-off the deputy minister, or in the case of the Printing Bureau, the King's Printer, is surely the best man to decide who should go and who should remain. That is the point I endeavoured to make. Action was taken in this very highhanded way by this servant of Arthur Young and Company and approved of by the Civil Service Commission.
In conclusion, my desire in bringing this matter to the attention of the House was simply to promote efficiency in the Civil Service of Canada. I know, as I said at the outset of my remarks, that ninety per cent of the civil servants are dissatisfied, and there is uniest manifested in each department by reason of the re-classification. I therefore beg the Government to dispense with the services of these gentlemen from the United States, and ask the deputy ministers to make a report and clean up the re-classification in order that we may have an efficient Civil Service not only in Ottawa but throughout the whole Dominion.
Motion of Mr. Fripp agreed to.



WATER SUPPLY TO GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) for the
Minister of Public Works, it was ordered that the House do to-morrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a proposed resolution respecting an agreement between the Government and the city of Ottawa concerning the water supply to Government buildings in Ottawa.
Hon. MACKENZIE KING:: Who is the Minister of Public Works?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Hon. J. D. Reid.


THE OPIUM AND DRUG ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. N. W. Rowell (Minister of Health), the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
1.	That the Minister presiding over the Department of Health shall have power to issue licenses for the import, export, sale, manufacture and distribution of any drug; to name the ports or places in Canada where any drug may be exported or imported; to prescribe.the manner in which any raw opium, prepared opium or any drug is packed and marked for export; to prescribe the record that shall he kept by any licensee in connection with the export, import, receipt, sale, disposal and distribution of the drug or drugs mentioned in such license, and to make alf convenient and necessary regulations with respect to the issue, duration, terms and forms of the several licenses that may be issued and the payment of fees for such licenses, not exceeding the sum of twenty-five dollars for any license, and no such license shall continue in force for a longer period than one year.
2.	That penalties may be imposed for the
violation of the provisions of the proposed legislation.	*
3.	-That a duly authorized and practising physician, veterinary surgeon or dentist, or a druggist carrying on a bona fide business In a shop or store may be excepted from penalties imposed for manufacturing, selling or distributing drugs without license, but every druggist shall keep such records of the amount of any drug received or sold by him as the Minister may by regulation prescribe.
4.	That the penalties imposed for manufacturing, selling or distributing drugs without license, and for not keeping records, shall not apply to any liniments, ointments or other preparations which are prepared for external skin use only, which do not contain cocaine, or any of its salts or preparations; provided, however, that the Governor in Council may by regulation apply the proposed provisions to any preparation named and prescribed in such regulation.	*
Mr. BELAND:: Will the minister explain the resolution.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The object of the proposed resolution is to put into legislative form the conclusions embodied in the International Opium Convention signed at The Hague on the 23rd of January, 1912. The

members of the House will recall that by Article 295 of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, provision was made that this International Opium Convention 5 p.m. should be brought into force.
A similar provision was inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Austria and in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria. In order that the Committee may have the matter before them I shall read the provision in the Treaty of Peace which relates to this matter. It is Article 295 in the Treaty of Peace with Germany, and Article 174 in the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, and reads as follows:
Those of the High Contracting Parties who have not yet signed, or who have signed but not yet ratified, the Opium Convention signed at The Hague on January 23, 1912, agree to bring the said Convention into force, and for this purpose to enact the necessary legislation without delay and in any case within a period of twelve months from the coming into force of the present Treaty.
Furthermore, they agree that ratification of the present Treaty should in the case of Powers which have not yet ratified the Opium Convention be deemed in all respects equivalent to the ratification of that convention and to the signature of the Special Protocol which was opened at The Hague in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the Third Opium Conference in 1914 for bringing the said Convention into force.
For this purpose the Government of the French Republic will communicate to the Government of the Netherlands a certified copy of the protocol of the deposit of ratifications of the present Treaty, and will invite the Government of the Netherlands to accept and deposit the said .certified copy as if it were a deposit of ratifications of the Opium Convention and a signature of the Additional Protocol of 1914.
The inclusion in the Treaties of Peace with enemy countries of this provision has made possible the bringing into operation of the International Opium Convention which was formulated and signed by some of the Powers at the Hague in December 1911 and January 1912.
While the Convention had been signed by a majority of the Powers who took part in the Conference at the Hague, there were still certain important Powers which, up to the meeting of the Peace Conference, had either declined to sign, failed to ratify, or been unwilling to agree that the Treaty should be brought into force. Therefore in view of the great international importance of this Convention which embodied the conclusions of the great Powers of the world as to the measures which were essential to not only restrict but to as far as practicable put an end to the trade in opium, morphia and cocaine, it was desir-

able that it should be brought into force. And the Peace Conference had made enforcement possible.
Perhaps it will be interesting to recall the fact that this Convention really had its inspiration at the International Conference held in Shanghai in the year 1908 and the early part of 1909. At this Conference some twelve nations were represented, and it is an interesting coincidence that my hon. friend the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) was the Canadian representative at that Conference which initiated the movement that culminated in the preparation of this Convention and in the agreement at Paris that it should be put into operation.
The Conference at Shanghai agreed to four resolutions; I do not wish to trouble the House with them but I shall give their effect as indicating the basis of this Convention. The first was a recognition of the sincerity of China in its desire to eradicate the production and consumption of opium. Members of the House will realize what the opium trade and traffic has meant to China. Information was given at this Conference at Shanghai that there were more than twenty million addicts to the opium habit in China, and every one knows how serious a menace to the moral, economic and physical welfare of the people of China the opium tiaffic has been. The second resolution was to the effect that each delegate would request his own Government to formulate laws for the gradual suppression of the opium traffic. By the third it was declared that the trade in opium, other than in legitimate ways, was held by nearly all the participants in the Conference to be a matter for prohibition or careful regulation. The fourth declares that as each country finds it feasible to restrict the importation of opium the Conference is of opinion that the export also should be prevented to any country which prohibits its entry. The fifth resolution declares that the manufacture, distribution and sale in each country, except for legitimate purposes, should be drastically dealt with.
As far as Canada is concerned, I think that within a year-or perhaps a little more than a year-after the Conference was held, the existence of the tariff was brought forcibly to the attention of the people by certain riots that occurred on the Pacific coast. In connection with these riots damage was done to the property of Chinese residents in coast cities and the claims they presented to the Government for compensation included

claims for the destruction of important quantities of opium indicating the extent of the trade on the Pacific coast in that deleterious article. The result of the Conference at Shanghai plus the discovery of the conditions existing in Canada, led to the passing of the Act of 1911.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For the sake of recording the order of events accurately, I might say that the situation on the Pacific coast had arisen before the Conference was held. The Canadian Government had the situation on the Pacific coast investigated, a report was made, and an Act was passed by this Pariiament prior to the time at which the Shanghai Conference was held. In consequence of this country having taken action in the matter of the opium traffic, Canada was asked to be represented at the Shanghai Conference.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I thank my hon. friend for the correction as to the dates. My hon. friend recalls the facts to my mind. It was the Act of 1908 to which I referred.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is further interesting in this connection to state that the United States' government took cognizance of the Act which this Parliament passed, and at the Shanghai Conference admitted that Canada had really led the way in helping to control the opium traffic in so far as this continent was concerned.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I was in error. The riots preceded the Act of 1908 not the Act of 1911. The riots first, then the Act of 1908, the International Conference at Shanghai in 1909 and the legislation following that Conference by this House in 1911-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The further
legislation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The further legislation of 1911-that is the chronological order. The Conference at Shanghai recommended the calling of an international conference to consider the framing of an international convention which might result in the suppression, in very large measure, of improper use of opium, morphia and cocaine. That Conference met at The Hague in December, 1911 and January, 1912 and agreed upon the Convention which is now to be put into force. This legislation is to enable Canada to carry out fully the provisions of the Convention.. It is not as necessary for Canada to enact legislation as it is for some other countries because the Acts of 1908, of 1911 and of last session went a long way towards complying with the provisions of the Convention, but they did not fully carry out the Convention. As we are obligated to pass the necessary legislation within a year after the Convention goes into force, this resolution is introduced upon which will be founded a Bill to carry out the Convention.
So that the members of the House may appreciate just the reasons for the proposed legislation, may I draw attention to the terms of this Convention. By the way, it is of passing interest to note that the Convention to which we are now to give effect by legislation contains among the names of the parties to it those of several who have passed from the scene as rulers among the nations of the world. It indicates the remarkable changes politically which have taken place since this Convention was signed. Among the parties either to the Convention or who signed it are the Emperor of Germany, the Czar of all the Rus-sias, and the Emperor of China, while one of the parties who proposed to adhere to it but did not sign it was the Emperor of Austria. All these four emperors have gone. The Hohenzollern, Romanoff, Hapsburg and Manchu.dynasties have all passed away and republics have taken the places of their empires between the dates when this Convention was prepared and signed by some of the parties and the date when it actually comes into operation. The Treaty deals with raw opium, prepared opium, medicinal opium, morphine and cocaine, and special provisions are made with reference to each one. With reference to raw opiuiq, the contracting parties agree to enact effective laws or regulations for the control of the production and distribution of raw opium unless laws or regulations on the subject are already in existance.
In article 2 they provide:
Due regard being had to the differences in their commercial conditions, the contracting Powers shall limit the number of towns, ports or other localities through which the export or import of raw opium shall be permitted.
That is the reason of the provision in the resolution authorizing regulations to be made covering this point. Then by article 3 it is provided:
The contracting Powers shall take measures

(a)	To prevent the export of raw opium, to countries which shall have prohibited its entry, and 0b) To control the export of raw opium to countries which restrict its import.
Therefore the provision in the resolution, and in our Bill, controlling export. Article 4 declares:
The contracting Powers shall make regulations requiring that every package containing raw opium intended for export shall be marked

in such a way as to indicate its contents, provided that the consignment exceeds 5 kilo.
That explains the proiiision in the resolution and in the Bill to be founded upon it, which requires the marking of these packages.	j	1 I
Nolw, article 5:
The contracting Powers shall not allow the import and export of raw opium except by duly authorized persons.
That explains the reason for the provision that licenses shall be taken out by those who are to import or to export. Then we come to the prepared opium.
Mr. McKENZIE r Before the minister leaves that point, might I ask whether there is anything on our statute hooks to prevent the shipment into this country, or through this country, of raw or prepared opium?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, there is at the present time. In addition -to the legislation of 1911 we passed in the early part of 1919 two Orders in Council requiring that licenses should he taken out for the import or export of opium into or from Canada. We did that as a result of certain communications received from other countries which indicated that an illicit trade in these articles was developing and the available -supplies were needed for medicinal and army purposes, and it was necessary to control the handling of it. Last session we put those Orders in Council into legislative form and under -that statute we have been regulating the import and export of opium. Perhaps it will be of interest to the House to learn the result of that legislation. I am glad to say one result has been a very important diminution in the amount of opium imported into Canada. I cannot at the moment lay -my hand upon the figures, 'but it indicates a great reduction in the amount. However, I will give the House the figures a little later.
Then, dealing with prepared opium, almost identical provisions are made for controlling its import, export or -manufacture, as follows:
Article 6. The contracting Powers shall take measures for the gradual and effective suppression of the manufacture of, internal trade in, and use of prepared opium, with due regard to the varying circumstances of each country concerned, unless regulations on the subject are already in existence.
Article 7. The contracting Powers shall prohibit the import and export of prepared opium; those Powers, however, which are not yet ready to prohibit immediately the export of prepared opium shall prohibit it as soon as possible.	.

Article 8. The contracting Powers which are not yet ready to prohibit immediately the export of prepared opium-(a) s-hall restrict the number of towns, ports," or other localities through which prepared opium may be exported ;
(b)	Shall prohibit the export of prepared opium to countries which now forbid, or which may hereafter forbid the -import thereof;
(c)	Shall, in the meanwhile, prohibit the consignment of prepared opium to a country which desires to restrict its entry, unless the exporter complies with the regulations of the importing country.
The, result will be that when concurrent legislation has been passed by the different countries which are parties to this Convention, no opium can be exported, say, from England or the United States to Canada, except in conformity with the regulations passed pursuant to our legislation which permits the importation into Canada by certain permitted persons for certain specific purposes.


Mr.   BELAUD@: When was the first Opium and Drug Act passed by this Parliament?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Act of 1908 was the first one we had; the next was the Act of 1911; and the third, the Act of 1919. (Reading) :
(d)	Shall take measures to ensure that every package exported, containing prepared opium, bears a special mark indicating the nature of its contents;
(e)	Shall not permit the export of prepared opium except by specially authorized persons.
Chapter 3 of the Treaty deals with what is described as medicinal opium, morphine and cocaine. I shall not take up the time of the House by reading those provisions. I shall only point out that in principle they are similar to the provisions I have already read with reference to raw opium and manufactured opium. Then Article 15 provides :
The contracting Powers having treaties with China (Treaty Powers), shall, in conjunction with the Chinese Government, take the necessary measures to prevent the smuggling into Chinese territory, as well as into their Par-Eastern colonies and into the leased territories which they occupy in China, of raw and prepared opium, morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts, as also of the substances referred to in Article 14 of the present convention. The Chinese Government shall, on their part, take similar measures for the suppression of the smuggling of opium and of the other substances above referred to from China to the foreign colonies and leased territories.
In other words, as hon. members will see, the object of this article was on the one hand to protect China, if she honestly undertook to suppress the trade in opium, from having other countries profit by her suppression and smuggle opium into China.

On the other hand, the provisions inserted require China to act in a bona fide manner and suppress the opium traffic in her own country if the countries manufacturing or (producing opium and exporting it to China curtailed it in their own country. The basis of it is a reciprocal arrangement governing China and the other countries as well. This is dealt with in three articles that follow:
Article 16: The Chinese Government shall promulgate pharmacy laws for their subjects, regulating the sale and distribution of morphine, cocaine, and their respective salts, and of the substances referred to in Article 14 of the present Convention, and shall communicate these laws to the Government having treaties with China, through their diplomatic representatives at Peking. The contracting Powers . having treaties with China shall examine these laws and, if they find them acceptable, shall take the necessary measures to apply them to their nationals residing in China.
I do not think it necessary, Mr. Chair-map, to go further into the terms of this Convention. I have given a general outline of these provisions so far as they have a bearing upon the resolution now before the House. .
The Convention was agreed to by the twelve Powers represented at the Hague in January, 1912, and an effort was made to secure the adhesion of the other Powers who might be interested either in permitting or suppressing this traffic. There were thirty-six other Powers named in the schedule to the Convention who were to be asked to adhere to its terms, and the Government of the Netherlands was commissioned to communicate with those Powers with a view to securing their adhesion.
Let me say in passing that it was agreed that the Convention should come into force only in case all those Powers adhered to it. The object was absolutely to regulate, in so far as they did not completely suppress, the trade in these habit-forming drugs. Therefore the dissent of countries that either produced opium or might be responsible for dealing with it would interfere with the whole arrangement, and originally the operation of the Convention was predicated upon all the Powers named in the schedule adhering to it, it being provided that in case they did not adhere before a time specified, a new conference should be called at the Hague with a view to dealing further with the matter.
While a very large number of the Powers did adhere, the terms of the Convention were not complied with, and a new Conference was called at the Hague in July, 1913. At that Conference it was decided that the objects which the Convention sought to obtain were so important in the interests of humanity as a whole that the operation of the Convention should not be nullified by reason of some few Powers having failed to sign it, and that therefore the Conference should proceed and endeavour to secure the signature as well as the ratification of the other Powers; it being understood that the Treaty might go into effect even though it was not signed or ratified by all the Powers named in the schedule. An effort was made to carry out- this resolution, and it was provided that in case of failure, a further conference might he held to decide whether the Powers that had ratified the Convention should be called upon to put it into legislative effect before all the Powers had signed it.
At the Conference of 1913 it was agreed that the Convention should be signed and ratified by the Powers who were willing to do so, but the action then taken at that Conference did not go to the extent ot agreeing that it should be put into legislative operation, and another effort was made to get all the Powers in. That effort failed and a third conference was called in June, 1914.
Up to the time of this conference the consent of all the Powers had been secured in one form or another, except that of Turkey and Serbia, a qualified consent from Greece, a promise of consent from Austria-Hungary, and a qualified promise from Germany. With the information "before the Conference, however, it was decided to proceed and a resolution was passed that the Convention should be iput ito effect, and that the Powers prepared to sign and ratify should be asked to adopt the necessary legislation.
The war intervened and it was not posible to make further progress. The United States and Great Britain took the initiative at the Peace Conference and by inserting the provision I have mentioned in the Peace Treaties with Germany, with Austria and with Bulgaria,-and undoubtedly it will be inserted in the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, -they secured the assent of all the Powers which up to that time had refused and were thereby blicking the carrying out of this very important international undertaking. So that the combined action of the Shanghai Conference and the three/Conferences at The Hague, plus the Treaty of Peace, should be to bring into effect this international agreement for the suppression of the opium traffic in all the countries vitally concerned in it.
I am sure the House will agree that that consummation marks a most important ad-



varnce in international co-operation for human welfare the world over. This resolution now submitted to the House is to put the Government in a position to carry out fully its obligations under the terms of the Convention. I do not know that there is anything more I can add by way of explanation, but if any further, information is desired by hon. members I shall be glad to give it.	,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I ask
my hon. friend if he has any information as to whether there has been any increase of the habit-forming drugs in consequence of the prohibitive enactments of recent years?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That question came up
when we had the Bill before the House last session and I inquired of the officers of the department in reference to it. Their reply was that from the best information they could gather there was no evidence to justify the conclusion that prohibition had produced that result.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to say that I think the House is indebted to the Miniser of Health (Mr. Rowell) for having gone so exhaustively into the historical and international significance of this important legislation. He has given reasons which, I am sure, will appeal to all of us, and I think there is no good ground for delaying the passing of this resolution.
Resolution reported, i
Mr. Rowell moved for leave to introduce a Bill founded on the resolution.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


CANADA SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) that the House do go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to repeal sections eighty-five to eighty-nine, both inclusive, and section ninety-one of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter one hundred and thirteen of the Revised Statues of Canada, 1906, and to re-enact in lieu thereof:-
(1) That every British subject who,-
(a)	served as a master or mate of a seagoing or coasting vessel of over seventy-five tons, gross tonnage, before the first day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty, for a full period of twelve months within ten years immediately next preceding the date of his application for a certificate of service, -
(b)	produces satisfactory evidence of his sobriety, experience, ability and general good conduct on board ship, and
[Mr. Rowell. 1
(c)	passes the sight test and the prescribed examination in signalling, shall be entitled, on payment of the prescribed fee, to a certificate of service as a master or mate of a square rigged or fore-and-aft rigged sea-going or coasting sailing vessel not exceeding seven hundred and fifty tons, registered tonnage, according as his service has been (a) as master or as mate, (b) on a sea-going or on a coasting sailing vessel, (c) on a square rigged sailing ship or on a fore-and-aft rigged sailing vessel.
(2) That in every such certificate of service the name, place and date of birth of the person to whom the same is issued shall be stated, and each certificate shall specify whether the holder is entitled to act as master or mate, whether the certificate is for sea-going vessels or for vessels in the coasting trade, and whether for square-rigged sailing vessels or for fore-and-aft sail-in vessels, and that it is not for any vessel exceeding seven hundred and fifty tons, registered tonnage.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When this resolution was before the House last week I tried to get some information from the minister as to why we are departing from the old law pertaining to the handling and sending to sea of our ships. It is an offence against the Criminal Code to send an unseaworthy ship to sea; one who is convicted of that offence may be sent to penitentiary. What is the difference between sending an unseaworthy ship to sea and sending an unqualified master to sea in charge of a ship? The proposal now before us is to carry forward the old idea that prevailed at the time of the first introduction into this country of a Shipping Act. The doctrine that was held to on that occasion has been asserted also in connection with mining laws. There was a time when it was not necessary for a man to have a certificate to take charge of a coal mine; if he had had the experience and was capable of doing the work, no law required that he should have a certificate. All at once a law was enacted that a mining manager should have a certificate, and that was regarded as a very great hardship to a man who was competent to do the work and who had had the experience but who had not the technical education to enable him to write a proper examination or to answer satisfactorily the questions put as the basis for the granting of a certificate. It was provided in that Act, therefore-and there was a similar provision in the old Shipping Act-that a man who had had the experience and who was qualified to do the work should be permitted to carry on as he had done before and should be given a certificate of service. But everybody knows what the present provisions of

our Shipping Act are, and a law should not now be enacted giving to any one who has not obtained a proper certificate the right to handle ships. Such legislation as is here proposed would have a tendency to put us away behind other countries in respect to ships, masters, and mates. We have been going into shipbuilding to the extent of millions of dollars; and so long as the minister keeps within proper bounds and gets full value for the money that he expends on this account, I fully approve of the action taken in that regard. But while we are going ahead in the matter of shipbuilding, we are going behind in proposing to give a license as master or mate to any person who may choose to serve a year on some schooner. If this proposal is adopted the tendency will be to discourage our young men from going into this profession, and the ships that we are building will have to be put in charge of men from other countries. The schools for the education of seamen and for the granting to certificates to captains should be encouraged; higher qualifications should be required of masters and mates. In practically every other profession the tendency is to go forward, to be more scientific, to be more progressive, to know more about the subject in hand than ever before, and to keep pace with the world. But the minister asks us to turn back the hands of the clock, to go back sixty years so far as the education of master mariners and mates is concerned. I live in a seaport at which thousands of vessels call every summer, and I have some conception of the importance of sending men out to sea in charge of crews of twenty or thirty and thousands of dollars' worth of property. Those men should be properly qualified. I would have as much Tight to pass a law permitting a man who is not a doctor, who is not a surgeon, to go into a hospital and operate on patients >as I would to pass a law cutting down the safeguards and qualifications which have been found to be necessary in connection with the operation of ships. As I said the other day, I have not any personal interest in this matter, not even to the extent of one-half cent's worth. But I fought the legislation when it was proposed last fall; I regarded it as a danger to the community, and the then Acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. A. K. Maclean), who had the matter in charge, withdrew the proposals as a result of my protest. I suppose those who are behind this proposal think that where the then acting minister failed, a bigger 36*
and stronger man, and the head of the department, will succeed. If the minister wishes to display his prowess to those who are in favour of this retrograde movement, he is entitled to all the glory that attaches to it, but he shall not have that glory without my making the most vigorous protest against the proposed legislation.


Hon. C. C. BALLANTYNE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: It is the hon.
member himself (Mr. McKenzie), not the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who wishes to go back fifty years. As a rule, the hon. member is a very progressive gentleman; he is usually ready to be abreast of the times or even ahead of them. In this particular instance, however, he has an unusually strong desire to remain fifty years behind. I pointed out to the hon. member the other day that the Shipping Act now enables a man who wishes to qualify as master or as mate of a sailing vessel of one hundred or one hundred and fifty tons to get a service certificate. But that man's age would have to be 70 or 75, because no master or mate can obtain a service certificate under the present Shipping Act unless he served on a sailing vessel prior to the year 1870; nor can a mate get a service certificate unless he served - on a sailing vessel prior to 1883.
1 refer now to sea-going craft. This resolution also asks that section 86 be repealed in order that men, if they so desire, may obtain certificates of service as mates. But there again, they would have to have served on a sailing vessel prior to 1883 for inland waters, and that year applies to both masters and mates. The object of this resolution and the Bill that is to be based on it is merely to move the hands of time, as the.hon. member has stated, from 1870 and 1883 up to ten years prior to 1920. Surely hon. members will have no objection to the Government bringing the Shipping Act up to date. We are not changing the statute so far as the law is concerned, as the hon. member has, I think, incorrectly stated; we are merely bringing the Shipping Act up to date.
We are also changing ~the tonnage of the vessel so that it shall not exceed 750 tons. I should like to point out to hon. members that our great neighbour to the south allows masters and mates to navigate sailing vessels up to 750 tons without any certificate at all. But before any one can get a service certificate as this resolution, and the Bill that will be based on it, set forth, he will have to have served on a sailing vessel

twelve months any time within ten years prior to 1920; and in addition to that he must produce satisfactory evidence of his sobriety, experience, ability and general good conduct on board ship and must pass the sight test and the prescribed examination in signalling. I do not think that in the passing of this resolution and of the Bill later on we are jeopardizing the shipping industry. I pointed out the other day-there may be present some hon. members who were not in the House when this matter was under discussion before-that this country is so much in need of masters and. mates for small sailing vessels that I had to take the necessary authority under the War Measures Act, and now that the War Measures Act no longer holds good, it is necessary for me to bring forward this resolution.
The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) states again that a similar Bill was introduced by the acting minister at the last session of Parliament. May I be permitted to correct the hon. member and to say that if he will be good enough to compare the Bill that the acting minister introduced last session, with the resolution that is now before the House, he will find that they are entirely different. I will not take up the time of the committee by reading the Bill that the acting minister introduced last session.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It was along the same pernicious lines.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Bill that the acting minister desired to have passed at the last session of Parliament was for sailing vessels propelled by steam as an auxiliary power. The present resolution-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a much safer method.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There again I am sorry that I cannot agree with my hon. friend. But to sum up in a few words: The authority is in the Shipping Act today whereby any man can get a service certificate if he is seventy or seventy-five years of age and served on a sailing vessel prior to 1870. A man can also get a service certificate provided he is seventy or seventy-five years of age and has served on a sailing vessel prior to 1883. Surely, the hon. member is not going to find any fault with me or this Government for being progressive enough to bring the Shipping Act up to date in order that these men when they are in the full vigour of their youth may

get the necessary service certificates as captains or mates.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister could not have followed me or he would not say that I am refusing to bring this Act up to date. When the English law was brought into force in this country, it was found that there were numbers of men who were navigating sailing vessels and doing it very well, who had no certificates, because the law did not demand them. It was found that to compel those men to get certificates would be a great hardship upon them and they were given service certificates because they could do the work at that time, a provision being put into the law that on account of their services they could get certificates. But that does not apply since the law came into force, because every man who puts his foot on uuard a ship with the hope of promotion knows that he must comply with the law, and he cannot come here and say: I have served so and so and because of my service I must get a certificate. Because when he started his seamanship and his services the law was on1 the statute book and he must be understood to know it and to expect to comply with it if he looks for any promotion. That is my position; that is the law; that is what the intention was; and there must be no misunderstanding as to my position.


Mr. DUFF:: As my remarks will be rather lengthy, I should be glad, Mr. Chairman, if you would call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.


George Green Foster: We have gone through the whole of the list of private member's resolutions and exhausted them. There is, therefore, no private members' business to come on if we return to-night. There is this resolution and that finishes the Government business which is ready, and under those circumstances, I think it is scarcely worth while for us to come back to-night. I, therefore, move that the House do now adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Friday, March 19, 1920.